A few years back, a damaging report came out about the high number of children's death in my state due to foster care placement. THe state was accused of not being aware of horrible conditions, let alone being active in checking up on these kids. I woke up this morning to the digital edition of the Lincoln Journal-Star and discovered that a father and motehr are suing the state over it's taking of their baby born recently.



O.K., I'm reading this and I'm thinking to myself: "Self, this isn't right." Then the kicker....



This is really a tricky situation really. A few years back, there were a number of foster care children deaths in my state that lead to a big outcry.

Questions for debate:

1.)Should earlier terminations be a factor as to whether or not subsequent children can/should be removed from the home?

2.)Should parental custody with regular visits from state workers be the best option? Why or why not?

3.)At what point does "family reunification" become a dangerous and foolish guideline to follow regarding child placement?

First, I am originally from the Cornhusker State and a lifelong Husker, so GO BIG RED! That said, I am glad Calahan is now off to the Olympic Team. You hadn't heard? He was drafted to coach the bobsled team-no other coach in history has been able to run a team downhill so fast!

Ok, to your thread. Initially, my thoughts run only on the first question, the other two will require some thought, so will be back for more discussion on those. First, with the limited information that is provided (a link to the story would be useful), it is hard to make a determination on whether or not the decision to remove the child was valid. I understand the concern that by removing the child and placing it into foster care, the child may end up in just as bad a situation, but foster care is a seperate issue that also needs to be addressed. I know that in this situation, the child might have been thrown out of the pot and into the fire, but like I said, those are two seperate issues. If the earlier terminations were the result of neglect or abuse of the children, I would support the removal of the new born baby. If the earlier terminations were the result of an addiction, and the parents were actively seeking treatment and have been clean for a given amount of time (I would think a minimum of a year, but I am not an expert) and have gotten jobs to support the child(ren), then I think they should be given a chance. Like I said, there are a lot of questions left unanswered without knowing more of the background of the story. With now four children, are they able to be productive and active parents, and are they making enough money to raise four children? Again, more information is needed. I would be interested in reading the article, and any that can be found on why the other three were removed. Also, what steps has the state taken to improve it's foster care? I know in Iowa, we had a big stink after some kids were killed, not in foster care, but in the care of parents that shouldn't have been in custody of their children because of abuse. Our legislature made solving that problem the top priority and the DHS was turned inside out, reorganized, new leadership put in place and new laws providing more protection for the children were enacted. I don't check in on the status, but there hasn't been anything in the news since the uproar. Has Nebraska done anything to improve it's system?

nebraska29, is it possible you could post a link to the original story? I can't seem to find anything on Google, but then I may be using the wrong search terms.

I'm struggling, on the snippets you quoted, to know where to start.

Thanks

Oops!

Here is the article.

I find the claim of a "First Amendment right to enjoy family" to be at the very least "creative" if not downright bizarre. I don't get that one at all. It seems to be they would be far more successful in their appeal if they were to invoke the various due process rights contained in the Constitution. I think they have a pretty decent case on those grounds. I'm not sure what the Nebraska statutes governing this case say, but pre-emptive actions like this one are pretty iffy.

1.)Should earlier terminations be a factor as to whether or not subsequent children can/should be removed from the home?

I think a history of this sort of behavior by the parents should play a role in the determination, but not the sole role. Maybe a shorter leash kind of thing.



2.)Should parental custody with regular visits from state workers be the best option? Why or why not?

That would be a good start along perhaps with some sort of mandated parenting counseling.


3.)At what point does "family reunification" become a dangerous and foolish guideline to follow regarding child placement?

Paramount in any decision like this should be the health and welfare of the child. When "family reunification" imperils the best interests of the child, it becomes a dangerous and foolish guideline.


Aquilla

According to the article, the previous children were removed from the home due to neglect.

I would hope that there would be sufficient documentation to support the above cases. If there is sufficient documentation of neglect, I would be lead one to believe that the patern would continue until the parent gets counceling and training on how to care for a child. The article didn't illustrate what kind of neglect, so it is still hard to determine the severity, but if the rights have been terminated, one would think that there is sufficient reason. If the parent neglected the previous three, one would believe that there wouldn't be sufficient reason that the parent would not continue the neglect.

I agree with what Aquilla said about the 3rd question. I would take it a bit farther and say that keeping children with their biological parents on the foundation of blood should not be a factor at all. Getting children into stable environments where there is the possibility to grow healthily and be loved is the most important thing.

1: As for this case, if there is a pattern of neglect, by all means, any new child must be removed! How many children need to be abused/neglected by one couple before one is saved? If only the government could simply sterilise the couple, now THAT would solve problems.

2: For this case, I don't think that the parents should be involved in the child's live any longer. Such a connection would probably be detrimental to the child's mentality.

I think the main problem with "the system" is criteria and monitoring of foster parents themselves. There should be more laws or tests or SOMETHING to make sure that foster parents are decent, that they aren't doing it for the money. Maybe even advertise foster parenting more, try to get a greater number of people involved to select from.

I was a foster parent for several years. I've seen both sides of the fence: bad foster parents, bad judges, and bad parents! I unfortunately had the experience of dealing with a "blood is thicker than water" judge who, no matter what the circumstances short of death, would return the child to the bio parents. In one case I had a child who had been burned by her grandmother with cigarettes and she exhibited the scars for all to see, including the judge. I had three social workers accompany me to court supporting my bid to permanently foster this child and eventually adopt her. No one was present who opposed my request. The judge ruled against us all and sent her back to Mexicali and the grandmother who had mistreated her. On the other side of the coin when the county ran a background check on proposed foster parents, they did not mesh the b/g check with the California State records. Because of this lapse, the county hired foster parents who had felony records.

In many cases nowadays social workers who have huge case loads do not make the necessary home visits to check on the kids with bio placements, and kids who are in foster care. Bad stuff happens all the time and the "WHYS" can't be reduced to one conclusion. Obviously, if children are going to be taken from their homes, the alternative choices for them should be superior to their own homes. BUT many times the foster homes are worse! I don't see a solution in sight for these problems, and it makes me very sad!

1) Earlier terminations are considered an "aggravating circumstance" in some states, like here in Hawaii. According to Hawaii law, if the court determines that there is an "aggravating circumstance" then the court does not need to enter a service plan and shall issue an order for the parent[s] to show cause why the matter should not immediately proceed to "permanent plan".

2) In the absence of "aggravating circumstance", the law is supposed to presume that removal of the child from the family home is the last option and only on compelling circumstance. Of course, what the law is supposed to presume and what actually happens are not the same creature.

3) Family reunification is never a foolish and dangerous guideline. More specifically, the law should provide that the state will provide services geared towards reunification for a specific period of time. If the services are then in fact provided and reunification cannot occur because the parent[s] are not able to provide the child with a safe family home within that specific time period, then the child should be put up for guardianship. A guardianship does not involve a termination of parental rights but simply vests all of those custodial duties and responsibilities normally belonging to the parent in another. If at any time after the child has a guardian appointed mom and/or dad can show that they are now able to provide the child with a safe family home and also that the child will not suffer any substantial, long-term psychological harm from a return to mom and dad, then the guardianship ought to be terminated and the child should go home to mom and dad.

The problem in this whole area is the termination of parental rights that must occur prior to an adoption. And we have the adoption scenario since not many of us apparently want to play the role of guardian of the child and the federal government otherwise reports that it loves our children but when it comes to their care it can only be described as "spendthrift". In other words, the new emphasis on termination of parental rights for purposes of subsequent adoption is so that the federal government won't have to pony up the money to give to the states to take care of the child. So you all see the point, with the adoption, then the adoptive parents, and not the state, are now responsible for the child's maintenance and support. The guardianship scenario has no chance of working without the guardians being compensated for their maintenance and support of the child and so here we are. When you all hear the government tell us all that it loves our children, well, when that happens please tell our government that Paul says that his government is a liar, as some aren't willing to put their money where the mouth is.

it's an odd coincidence- i was born in Hawaii, and was placed immediately in foster care because my bio parent/s had a history. i lived with my foster parents from the night i was born, and they ended up adopting me (thank God)! My half sister was born about 2 years after, and she was also placed under my parents' custody. However, her lawyer was different from the one i had, and valued reunification over anything else. So, while i left Hawaii with my parents and lived a happy life full of love and opportunity, my half sister was forced to stay in Hawaii, with a family that tortured and hated her, used her as a slave until she was mentally scarred. Years later, when she was about 8, her guardians called up my family in an attempt to get rid of her. in short, she now has a much better life.

anyway, that's my experience with "the system"... i just thought it was interesting for you to mention Hawaii specifically.

I don't have time to say as much as I want, but here is a post from the mother in this case.

Mother of this child wrote on December 9, 2007 5:22 pm:
" I am writing in defense of our family, noone knows anything about this case of the one with MY older three children, or why they were taken or rights terminated, so please practice what is preached about teaching others things, don't be judgemental about something you know nothing about. yes some children are safer in a out of home placement, but not our daughter, my other case is in appeal, all i can do is wait, but for our baby she should be home, she isn't in danger, or neglected. and we don't live off the state, we both work full time and go to school, and see our baby all the time, we dont use food stamps or medicaid, becuase we have our own insurance. It would seem a lot more fair if before someone cuts our family down, and is so harsh towards us please unless you have ever actually met us, or seen me with my children do not be so cruel. I may be stubborn, and strong minded even mouthy at times but an unfit mom, NO im not, i just feel i know best what my children need then the state, one of those things you don't know why i feel this way and i have a right to privacy not to have to say why. We do have a right to be a family, and we're fighting because the state has to have a reason to take a child not come in the hospital room and take her. "

There are also 2 other posts from an aunt and co-worker of the father in support of the family. Most of the rest of the article comments support the state.

My personal experience in our case, plus with dealing with various custody issues with people in our Mission's transitional housing program had led me to the following observations. People who admit that to being a drug addict or a violent person, but sign up for treatment are allowed to keep their children. People who deny accusations or disagree with the state have their children removed. HHS works from a standpoint of guilty until proven innocent. If you really are innocent, it can take years and a good lawyer to regain custody.

Although I hate the thought of any child being abused, in the interest of preserving our Constitutional rights, the burden of proof must rest upon the state, not the parents.

nebraskamom:

You wrote:

"My personal experience in our case, plus with dealing with various custody issues with people in our Mission's transitional housing program had led me to the following observations. People who admit that to being a drug addict or a violent person, but sign up for treatment are allowed to keep their children. People who deny accusations or disagree with the state have their children removed. HHS works from a standpoint of guilty until proven innocent. If you really are innocent, it can take years and a good lawyer to regain custody."

That about sums it up. You can give the child a linear skull fracture, a fractured left clavicle, a spiral fracture of the right humerus and some other things that I don't really care to contemplate but you're okay with an admission of "guilt" and a participation in and completion of services. But heaven forbid that you are ever found in "denial". One small glimpse of that reality:

"Beginning with its 12 September 2001 Foster Custody Petition, and continuing through the filing of its 13 May 2002 Supplemental Safe Family Report, the DHS has reported that [mother] subjected her daughter [omitted] to repeated acts of physical abuse. According to the DHS, [mother]’s repeated denial[s] regarding the infliction of such purported abuse will, among other items, "only delay the reunification process" (see, 13 May 2002 Supplemental Safe Family Home Report at 12). Perhaps, just perhaps, the DHS might wish to explain to [mother] and the Family Court just how the claim of repeated physical abuse reconciles with the recitation in [daughter]’s psychological evaluation that "[daughter] could not say anything good about her mother except that when [daughter] misbehaved, her mother did not punish her." Does the DHS truly wish to be heard claiming that [mother] did not beat (or punish) [daughter] when she misbehaved, but only when she behaved?"

That one did take years. The matter ended with mom apparently telling her youngest child of my efforts, and so when her youngest was returned to her care and there was that party with cake and ice cream at the one local park, well, the youngest one asked me whether I wished to have a ride on the swing with her on my lap. Some moments one never forgets. And the cake and ice cream wasn't bad either.

Now might I ask when you plan on becoming a family court judge in my state? Not a question, but a plea.